Skip to comments.Judge questions Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona immigration law
Posted on 11/01/2010 5:45:30 PM PDT by Nachum
A federal appellate judge expressed deep skepticism Monday about a Justice Department lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration law, leaving uncertain the Obama administration's chances of stopping the law from taking effect.
"I've read your brief, I've read the District Court opinion, I've heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don't understand your argument," Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. "We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That's not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don't have an argument."
"With respect, I do believe we have an argument," said Kneedler, who asserts that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and threatens civil liberties by subjecting lawful immigrants to "interrogation and police surveillance.''
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Notice the argument they make in court is different than the argument they use in public.
Well, Mr. Kneedler (apt name), doesn’t that apply to every crime with multiple suspects—whether they’re white, black, hispanic or indifferent. This is a text book speciously juvenile argument.
So let me get this straight, state folks can’t arrest illegals because it is a federal crime not a state crime. When the state makes it a crime, the feds say no, we are in charge of federal crimes and your laws are not necessary.
So when OKC was bombed by McVeigh, the state trooper who caught him should have said go on your way, I can only arrest folks for state crimes?
And that's the POLITE way of putting it.
Reporter claims the Arizona law “has triggered a fierce national debate.” Who is debating? Criminals versus citizens???
Is it just my imagination, or is Obama’s plummeting approval rating affecting judges’ attitudes and decisions? It sure looks that way to me, especially with the indefinite stay the 9th Circuit put on abolishing DADT.
power to the states!!!
It sure seems like that to me also but I think its coming from a different place. Reports out about Pelosi leaving and burning bridges and some other indications lead me to believe that there is a concerted effort to oust Obummer from the Democratic side.
Seeing Pelosi retire would be the cherry on top of what is shaping up to be a great election day. I hope any effect that is having on the judges isn’t a temporary thing, though, and that they won’t shift back to tilting left once she’s gone and Obama is disgraced.
On ABC radio this evening, I coulda sworn I heard them report this as the judge showing signs of throwing out key provisions in the law.
Look, this whole lawsuit business against Arizona was a political move to gin up latino support for Obama and the dems. As a legal case, all I can say is OBAMA/HOLDER FAIL.
There are two articles out on today’s hearing...what you heard was the other report.
Harray! Could it be there exist Federal judges who try law instead of legislating from the bench? I’ll wait for further developments in the court room before assuming such in this case.
The reporter who wrote this story, Jerry Markon, is one of the best, most objective reporters and a really nice guy. He wrote the Post’s most recent story about the Justice Dept & Black Panther case.